Letters: Stoking the ethanol debate

HOUSTON CHRONICLE

Published
6:30 am CST, Sunday, November 14, 2010

Thumbs down

Regarding "Food versus fuel" (Page B8, Wednesday), it is not surprising that the Houston Chronicle believes subsidies for fossil fuels are wise, but those for renewable fuels are foolish. What is surprising is the hypocritical criticisms it makes about ethanol and its reliance upon misinformation to support it position.

The Chronicle says natural gas from shale deserves federal subsidies for production, but says ethanol doesn't because it requires too much water to produce. The water needs of fracking and other non-traditional fossil fuel exploitation methods greatly exceed those of ethanol production today.

The Chronicle also relies on numerous factual errors to denounce ethanol. It ignores the fact the U.S. corn exports have remained constant, even during the past decade that saw the most dramatic increase in ethanol production. It fails to tell readers this year's corn harvest is the third-largest on record. It conveniently excludes the fact that ethanol plants also generate an animal feed co-product called distillers grains, a substantial portion of which are exported to feed livestock and poultry around the world. Nor does it note that the U.S. ethanol industry actually uses less than 3 percent of the world's grain.

While it is true corn prices have risen, the role of ethanol in that rise is minor at best. As the Wall Street Journal points out, U.S. monetary policy, speculation and increasing world demand for all commodities are sending everything from grain to precious metals higher.

We agree with the Chronicle that pursuing additional feedstocks for ethanol production is critical. But those technologies cannot be successful if current ethanol producers fail.

Bob Dinneen, president, Renewable Fuels Association, Washington, D.C.

Serious concerns

I commend the Chronicle for a very timely editorial on the production of ethanol for fuel made from corn.

Not only is water required in the production process, water for irrigation is depleting fresh water aquifers in many places. Also, since ethanol is highly corrosive it cannot be moved by pipelines.

Congress must put a stop to this misuse of food stocks.

Dick Jukes, Sugar Land

Beach homeowner ruling

Regarding "Beach homeowners win ruling" (Page A1, Nov. 6), the Texas Supreme Court has just issued a ruling that threatens the right of Texans to freely use their oceanside beaches. This ruling is a mishmash of twisted logic that defies both history and common sense.

The court argued, correctly, that the Republic of Texas recognized the Spanish land grants giving property to owners of land on western Galveston Island. But the court claims that when Texas entered the Union by treaty in 1845, the state never specifically claimed an easement granting it the right to control the "dry beach" on western Galveston Island. It defines the "dry beach" as that portion of the beach seaward of the dunes, or "natural vegetation" line, up to the normal high tide line. Thus, says the court, Texas cannot now enforce any such easement. The court also makes a bizarre distinction between gradual erosion of the shoreline and that caused by "sudden storms."

When Texas was a republic, there were virtually no residents on Galveston Island. Yet even in the days before the Republic, what residents there were began freely using the beach seaward of the vegetation line to access other parts of the island. After statehood, Texans continued to access those beaches by "use and custom." The state continued to grant residents access to the full beach on Galveston and elsewhere on its oceanside coastline, and the state used its powers to enforce such access.

When I was a child in the 1950s, the duneline had shifted landward by virtue of both gradual erosion and sudden storms over the 100 years since statehood. The beach moved over the Spanish land grant properties, yet the state continued to grant its citizens use of the full beach. Texas continued to exercise its powers to do so in the 50 years since. The Legislature enshrined those powers in the Texas Open Beaches Act, and last year those powers were made a part of the Texas Constitution. Anyone purchasing beachfront property in the state should and ought to have been aware of the state's historic protection of access and use of its ocean beaches.

Now comes this state Supreme Court ruling that seeks to undo 150 years of history and deny Texans full access to their beaches. One can only hope that the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court sees this ruling for the foolishness that it is and rejects its arguments.

Hard questions about war

Regarding "White House to back off Afghan War deadlines" (Page A11, Wednesday), I find it appalling that so many of us in America seem to care less about the war in Afghanistan. The date of withdrawal has now has now been extended by three years.

No one cares about the war anymore. We don't care because we don't have to make any sacrifices. We don't have to pay for it with higher taxes because we borrow all of our war funds from China. We have a volunteer military so we don't have to protest a draft. Only our services men and women and their families are making the sacrifices over and over again.

How long does this war have to go on before we rise up as a nation and put an end to this?

Shale gas, carbon dioxide

Regarding "Natural gas can help move economy out of doldrums" (Page B9, Wednesday), isn't it somewhat ironic that Greg Ebel, president and chief executive officer of Spectra Energy Corp. in Houston, uses as the basis for his advocacy for shale gas exploitation recent declines in carbon dioxide emissions?